K. N. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application under Section 397 Cr. P. C, is directed against the order of IV additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, dated August 6, 1980, modifying the order of the II additional Munsif Magistrate, Pilibhit, dated April 23, 1980. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts giving rise to this revision are that Smt. Raeesa Begum, applicant, was married to Shabbir Ahmad, opposite party. They got one son and two daughters. Somewhere in the month of July 1976, the applicant went to her parents house. While she was proceeding there, her husband, opposite party, detained two children but the minor daughter was allowed to accompany the applicant. While she was staying with her parents she sent several messages to her husband for taking her to his house, but he refused to call her. Ultimately, she herself went to her husbands house, but he did not allow her to enter his house, instead he and his brother siddiq beat her and she was not allowed to stay in the house. In August, 1977 the applicant moved an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Munsif Magistrate, Pilibhit, for the grant of maintenance to herself and to her child. Shabbir Ahmad opposite party, applicants husband entered appearance. He filed written statement and contested the applicants case. He asserted that he was always ready to keep the applicant with him but she was not ready to reside with him. He denied to have maltreated the applicant or beaten her. He further stated that he sent several notices by post to the applicant and to her father for sending her to his house but all went unheaded. In fact he made an application before the District Magistrate on 13th July, 1977 raising grievance that his wife had been detained illegally by his father-in-law. ( 3 ) THE parties produced evidence in support of their case before the trial court. Thereafter, the learned Munsif Magistrate by his order dated 23rd April, 1980 awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to the applicant and Rs. 50/- per month to the minor female child and directed the opposite party to pay the same every month to the applicant. ( 4 ) SHABBIR Ahmad, opposite part filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to the applicant and Rs. 50/- per month to the minor female child and directed the opposite party to pay the same every month to the applicant. ( 4 ) SHABBIR Ahmad, opposite part filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. By his order dated August 6, 1980, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit allowed the revision application partly. He maintained the award of maintenance allowance to the child at the rate of rs. 50/- per month but he set aside the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate awarding a sum of rs. 100/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant has approached this court by means of this revision application. ( 5 ) SECTION 125 Cr. P. C. lays down that when a person having sufficient means neglects to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself or refuses to maintain his minor child, the magistrate may upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to pay maintenance allowance to his wife and child. Before the Magistrate can exercise this jurisdiction, he must satisfy himself that the husband or the wife and the father of the child neglected or refused to maintain the wife or the child. Any application made by wife or child cannot be allowed unless these two essential ingredients are established by cogent evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded findings that the applicant had failed to prove that Shabbir Ahmad opposite party had, at any stage, refused to maintain the applicant. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on appreciation of the evidence on record which do not suffer from any apparent error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the applicant a grievance has been raised that the learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the findings recorded by the Munsif Magistrate. Normally, the Sessions judge does not interfere with the findings of fact but Section 397 Cr. P. C. convers jurisdiction on the Sessions Judge to interfere with that order even on the ground of propriety. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to interfere even with the findings of fact is not restricted. In a appropriate case, the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the magistrate. P. C. convers jurisdiction on the Sessions Judge to interfere with that order even on the ground of propriety. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to interfere even with the findings of fact is not restricted. In a appropriate case, the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the magistrate. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the applicant and he has discussed the merits of their testimonies in detail. He has recorded a finding that they were highly interested witnesses and some of them had not seen the beating alleged to have been given to the applicant by the opposite party and his brother Siddiq. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are findings of fact which doubt call - for any interference by this Court. ( 7 ) IN the result, I find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The revision application fails and is accordingly dismissed. .